In absolute terms, sure, but in relative terms, not even close. If you take $5,000 a year more from a man who makes $25,000 a year, you are putting him in some serious straits. If you take $50,000 a year from a man who makes $2 million, how is he injured?
Your simplistic analogy overlooks the fact that all working people pay taxes, they may not pay income taxes, but they damn sure pay taxes. Of course, people who cannot find work don’t pay those taxes either, the lucky, lucky duckies. Perhaps you have some program in mind to punish them for their laziness and greed?
The program’s very simple: you don’t vote in elections for a jurisdiction in which you don’t pay taxes. No punishment, it’s just the way all of life works – kibitzers’ opinions are worth exactly what they paid into the system.
Tell me, if the money is taken, not given, where is this generosity you speak of?
Oh, it’s the generosity of the government handing the money they took from Citizen A and gave it to Citizens B and C. You may want to look up the word generosity?
That’s ridiculous. No one said anything about “denying” them. He merely pointed out that there is nothing guaranteeing that they will be provided for free. I paid for my own education and I pay for my own healthcare. Things are going fine.
What a world you people live in where refusal to subsidize something, out of my pocket, that the rest of us pay for ourselves, can be equated with “denying” it to someone.
Believing what? That tax increases hurt economic growth? They do. That’s been known for a long time. We just finished a long thread on this, in which deadweight losses and malinvestment due to taxes was explained quite clearly.
In fact, a new peer-reviewer paper in the American Economic Review studied the effects of past tax increases, and shows that the GDP loss is even greater than previously thought for many kinds of taxes. Up to a 3% GDP loss after ten quarters from a 1% of GDP tax increase. That’s a HUGE hit. The Bush tax cuts represent about 2% of GDP, so if that paper is right, letting them all expire could result in as much as a 6% drop in GDP over the next three years. Not exactly what you want in a recession. Since that’s a bigger number than current economic growth, the result would be a double-dip recession.
And that’s about the worst thing you could do. One thing the paper did find was that tax increases specifically targeted at deficit reduction do not cause the same loss in GDP. If you’re going to let the Bush tax cuts expire, the best thing you could do with them is apply them directly to the deficit.
And just to keep our eye on the ball – remember that anyone opposed to allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire is, in the first instance, merely supporting a regime in which “the rich” fund the vast majority of a huge federal budget, pay 35% marginal rates and often another 10% in state and local taxes, and pay a more modest but still significant 15% rate on their gains from investing in American businesses. I will argue separately for further cuts from the Bush-level rates, and a more broad-based tax code in which everyone but the most destitute has to pitch in something, but for purposes of this debate, the Bush-era rates still fund a massive government and still take a very goodly amount from “the rich.”
I didn’t realize that you once you got yours, all is well. Your moral philosophy has all the depth of a toddler seizing a toy firetruck and screaming “MINE!”.
You are then either rich or lucky, since anyone who isn’t wealthy can be bankrupted by health care.
And yes, if they can’t afford necessities then that lack of affordability is denying it to them. The government should provide health care and education to those who can’t afford to pay just as it should provide food and shelter for those who can’t afford them. Even if it means extracting the necessary funds at literal gunpoint from people like you; since you are so fond of ruthlessness why shouldn’t they return the favor via the government? If you won’t extend compassion towards others then you deserve none.
If you can prove that I “seized” my salary I can take your analogy seriously. Actually, no. You’d also have to prove that (however I got the fire truck) my having it constituted “denying” it to a toddler in Cucamonga. Then I could start taking it seriously. But you can’t do either, so I can’t.
I rather suspect that the “whom” you are speaking of consists of one person; yourself. And I’m not arguing that compassion can be extracted at gunpoint; I’m saying that if you won’t pay your fair share willingly then it should be extracted by whatever means necessary, and that when someone shows no compassion they deserve none.
People with your philosophy of course only approve of ruthlessness when it’s applied to other people.
Was there ever any likelihood that you might? Seriously? This is the first you’ve heard of these crazy radical notions, and, having given them an hours thought, you have pondered and rejected them?
What’s this about “salary”, anyway? Does that mean that we are free to soak up any money not derived from actual work? What kind of crazy Trotskyist radical are you, anyway? Does that mean that inherited wealth, unearned, is fair game? I suspect it does not, I suspect you are throwing up “earning” as though it actually mattered.
So tell me why, in your opinion, a person who shuffles papers and makes deals at Lehman Bro. is worth a hundred times more than a fireman, or a teacher? Or is it just that once you get your hands on it, it becomes sacred, due to the Divine Right of Property?
You are aware, I trust, that when you invoke Jehovah and the Big Ten, you are treading on slippery ground? The commandment is not to steal, which is subject to some interpretation. You are aware, I trust, that the ethical system of the ancient Hebrews demanded care for the poor. Not a suggestion, not a guideline, demanded. You don’t help the poor, you suck, and God hates you. Perhaps you should invest more understanding of history before you rely on it to support your morally bankrupt political principles.
It is by every definition of the word. American business would be vastly different, and vastly less successful, and employ vastly fewer people, if access to capital markets did not exist.
I ask again – is arguing to limit my contribution at 35%, with a mere ten percent of the country on food stamps, your definition of morally bankrupt?
And by the way, when called out on an analogy that doesn’t hold water for five seconds, don’t blame the caller-out. Instead find better analogy that compares likes.